G.R. No. L-33604-05 - People vs. Ruiz

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33604-05)

Prosecution’s Accusations and How the Charges Were Framed

The prosecution first charged the accused with murder for the death of Alfredo A. Bito, a sergeant of the Nasipit Police Force. The amended information alleged that on December 16, 1966, at about 9:45 P.M., the accused, conspiring and using treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, and superior strength, attacked and shot Bito while the latter was on official duty, resulting in instantaneous death. This information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 3323.

A second amended information charged the remaining accused with double frustrated murder in relation to the wounding of Amado A. Felias and Leonardo G. Galve. The information alleged a conspiracy and concerted attack, involving treachery, evident premeditation, nighttime, superior strength, being in band, and the use of a vehicle (an International Scout pick-up, painted green, bearing plate No. T-26867). It stated that the accused commenced and performed acts of execution necessary to kill, but failed to accomplish the crime by reason of causes independent of the accused’s will, including early medical attention and the pursuit by Cpl. Galve of an assailant, resulting in no injury for Galve. This second information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 3324.

Joint Trial and the Events Leading to the Shooting

The cases were tried jointly and the material narrative in the decision focused on the incident beginning with a daytime argument and culminating in the nighttime ambush at the VISLU office. Earlier, Jesus G. Ruiz, identified as president of the Victory Stevedoring and Labor Union (VISLU), arrived at the police station with Ben Abian in a pick-up and angrily questioned Pat. Galve regarding the use of a Honda allegedly donated for policing matters. The exchange led to confrontation with officers, including Sgt. Bito, and Ruiz left in his pick-up at full speed.

That same evening, around eight o’clock, Mrs. Libertad Bito Ruiz was at her home in Talisay, Nasipit, preparing food for a birthday celebration, with members of the Nasipit Police present, including Sgt. Alfredo Bito, Lt. Amado Felias, and Cpl. Galve. The police jeep was parked near the VISLU office driveway, partially blocking it. Libertad later heard shouting from Ruiz, complaining of improper parking. The policemen admonished Ruiz to speak softly. After a heated confrontation, Sgt. Bito and Ruiz exchanged words, and Ruiz warned the policemen with a promise of confrontation “tomorrow,” then drove away.

After Ruiz left, the officers managed to start the jeep and were waiting while Sgt. Bito retrieved a jacket. Ruiz returned minutes later with additional companions, including Alfredo Guno, Antonio Zarcal, Jesus Maunes, Jr., Romeo Dumancas, and Jose Inutan, riding in Ruiz’s green pick-up. They stepped down, scattered, and took positions. Ruiz stayed near the pick-up and shouted for Sgt. Bito. At that moment, a burst of gunfire erupted, initiated by Alfredo Guno near a dilapidated truck; Sgt. Bito was hit in the leg and limped. During the gunfire, Lt. Felias was shot in the thighs by Ruiz’s fire from close range, while Cpl. Galve became engaged in the exchange as Jose Inutan ran and Galve pursued him.

The decision described how Pat. Granada, who took cover under the jeep, later saw Ruiz shoot Sgt. Bito at the mouth after Bito ran out of bullets and turned his face toward Granada. Sgt. Bito died on the spot. Ruiz then reportedly nudged the body and, after determining Bito was already dead, backed away. Ruiz also continued firing at Lt. Felias with a Thompson submachine gun until Felias fell and needed assistance. The policemen attempted to transport Felias toward Butuan City Hospital, but at the Cubi-Cubi checkpoint route the jeep they were riding in was bumped and fired upon by another vehicle, delaying transport; Felias was nevertheless delivered to the hospital using another passing vehicle.

Medical Findings Relating to the Character of the Wounds

The decision recounted the medical basis for identifying the nature and location of the wounds. Dr. Francisco Yazon, who examined Lt. Felias, stated that Felias would have died from the wounds without timely medical intervention due to either infection of fractured bones leading to blood poisoning or loss of blood. Dr. Lydia San Pedro, after conducting findings for the death of Sgt. Bito, reported injuries that included a wound on the leg piercing the gastrocnemius muscle, and a separate wound below the nasal system, with teeth and palate damage. She indicated the cause of death as cerebral hemorrhage, and she recorded the time when examined and the estimated time of death.

The Trial Court’s Disposition

The trial court convicted Ruiz and Guno in both cases, treated the Bito incident as murder under Art. 248 with nighttime as aggravating circumstance under Art. 14(6), and treated the Felias incident as frustrated homicide under Art. 249 in conjunction with Art. 50, likewise with nighttime as aggravating. The trial court imposed an indeterminate penalty for frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No. 3324 and imposed the supreme penalty of death by electrocution for murder in Criminal Case No. 3323. It also awarded damages and expenses of litigation, ordered the cancellation of the bail bond of Melquiades Ruiz, and acquitted Melquiades Ruiz in both cases for failure of proof beyond moral certainty.

The Appeals and the Issues Raised

In the appeal, counsel de oficio for Jesus G. Ruiz assigned errors asserting that the lower court relied on inherently incredible, uncorroborated evidence and failed to acquit. Counsel de oficio for Alfredo Guno raised multiple assignments, including challenges to the trial court’s finding that Guno shot and hit Sgt. Bito in the leg, assertions that the prosecution witnesses were biased and improbable, denial of conspiracy and of liability for injuries inflicted by Ruiz, allegations of judicial bias, arguments that the killing was only homicide rather than murder absent qualifying circumstances, and arguments that the injuries inflicted upon Felias and Galve should have amounted only to physical injuries, not frustrated homicide, among other points.

The Court addressed Ruiz’s assigned errors first and then proceeded to Guno’s.

Assessment of Evidence Against Jesus G. Ruiz

The Court held that the trial court did not err in crediting the prosecution evidence as to Ruiz’s participation in the killing of Sgt. Bito and the shooting of Lt. Felias. It found that Libertad Bito Ruiz testified directly that she saw Ruiz near her younger brother and fire at him, and later stated that Ruiz kicked Bito’s left knee after Bito slumped. The Court found this testimony corroborated by Pat. Granada, who testified that after Bito fired his pistol and ran out of bullets, Bito threw the revolver to Granada, and when Bito faced toward him, Ruiz shot Bito at the mouth, killing him. The Court further held that physical facts supported the testimony. It relied on the post mortem report describing an oval wound below the nasal system and medical testimony that the nature and characteristics of that wound corresponded to a bullet wound. It also cited findings on a blackened area in the nasal system to support the inference of shooting at close range of not more than 24 inches.

The Court rejected Ruiz’s theory that the perpetrators were Alfredo Guno and Romeo Dumancas. It held that the physical facts did not match Dumancas’s asserted role in causing the fatal wound, and it reasoned that Guno could have hit the leg only, consistent with testimony that Bito limped after the first shot. As to bias, the Court found that Libertad’s kinship to the deceased did not automatically render her biased, and it emphasized that her testimony had been consistently corroborated. It also considered Libertad’s employment with VISLU as a reason she was unlikely to testify falsely against Ruiz. The Court further found no motive for Pat. Granada to testify falsely against Ruiz.

The Court also addressed Ruiz’s arguments about the sufficiency of corroboration and the number of bullet wounds. It held there was no merit in asserting only one bullet wound, citing that the deceased sustained at least two bullet wounds of entry, including a leg wound and a facial nasal system wound.

Mitigating and Qualifying Circumstances Applied by the Court

Ruiz sought appreciation of mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, drunkenness (not habitual), and vindication of a grave offense. The Court ruled that voluntary surrender could not be appreciated because Ruiz did not go to the police headquarters to surrender; instead, the Court found that he merely reported the incident to prevent further bloodshed and never evinced a desire to assume responsibility. The Court similarly refused drunkenness as mitigating, because the record did not establish that Ruiz was intoxicated in a manner that diminished his capacity to know the injustice of his acts and to act accordingly. The Court underscored that Ruiz did not claim during trial that he was drunk at the time of the incident, and mere consumption of Tanduay was not proof of mitigating intoxication.

However, the Court appreciated having acted in vindication of a grave offense for the killing of Sgt. Bito. It treated the trigger as a personal insult and challenge arising from Ruiz being called an “abusador” and being challenged to a draw in the presence of police officers and in front of Ruiz’s office building. The Court found the offense sufficiently grave in view of Ruiz’s social standing as VISLU president and the setting of the insult. It held that Ruiz’s subsequent killing, after a short interval, was consistent with immediate vindication rather than premeditated malice.

Liability of Alfredo Guno: Credibility, Weight of Evidence, and Conspiracy

Turning to Guno’s appeal, the Court held that the trial court correctly found Guno shot Sgt. Bito in the left leg. It rejected the notion that this co

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-33604-05)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case reached the Supreme Court as an automatic review of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City, Branch II.
The trial court rendered judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. 3323 and 3324 after a joint prosecution and joint trial of the accused under their amended informations.
The accused-appellants were Jesus G. Ruiz and Alfredo Guno, both represented by counsels de oficio in the Supreme Court.
The trial court convicted Ruiz and Guno in Criminal Case No. 3324 for frustrated homicide under Art. 249, in conjunction with Art. 50, and applied the aggravating circumstance of nighttime under Art. 14(6).
The trial court sentenced Ruiz and Guno in Criminal Case No. 3323 for murder under Art. 248, imposing the supreme penalty of death by electrocution for which the decision stated that both were guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court acquitted Melquiades Ruiz in both cases on reasonable doubt.
The trial court ordered cancellation of the bail bond posted by Melquiades Ruiz for temporary liberty.
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision by changing the nature of the offenses and the proper penalties.

Key Factual Allegations

The amended informations alleged that the incident happened on December 16, 1966 at about 9:45 o’clock in the evening in Barrio Talisay, Nasipit, Agusan, within the trial court’s jurisdiction.
In Criminal Case No. 3323, the prosecution alleged that the accused conspired and attacked Sgt. Alfredo Bito, a Nasipit Police Force sergeant, inflicting wounds that caused his instantaneous death.
In Criminal Case No. 3324, the prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to kill Lt. Amado Felias and Cpl. Leonardo G. Galve in the performance of official duties, but the crimes were frustrated due to early medical attention and subsequent events showing desistance and medical intervention.
The information for Criminal Case No. 3324 also alleged qualifying and aggravating circumstances including treachery and evident premeditation, and generic aggravating circumstances including known premeditation and taking advantage of night time, among others.
The prosecution’s factual narrative centered on an escalating altercation involving a police jeep partially blocking the VISLU office area and subsequent gunfire during the same night.

Prosecution Evidence at Trial

The prosecution presented Libertad Bito Ruiz as a key eyewitness who testified that she saw the accused Jesus G. Ruiz go near and fire at her younger brother, Sgt. Alfredo Bito.
Libertad testified that after the shooting, Jesus G. Ruiz kicked Sgt. Bito’s left knee with his right foot.
On cross-examination, Libertad testified that she heard only one shot when Ruiz was near Sgt. Bito, and she confirmed that Sgt. Bito slumped down after the shooting.
The prosecution also relied on Patrolman Granada, who corroborated that after Sgt. Bito fired and ran out of bullets, Granada saw Sgt. Bito throw his pistol and then Jesus G. Ruiz shot him at the mouth.
The prosecution supported the eyewitness accounts with physical evidence from the post mortem report of Dr. Lydia San Pedro, which showed an oval wound below the nasal system and other injuries.
Dr. San Pedro testified that the oval wound near the nose region had characteristics consistent with a bullet wound and that a blackened area indicated a close-range distance of not more than twenty-four inches between the muzzle and the victim.
The Supreme Court found that the accused’s claim that Alfredo Guno and Romeo Dumancas were the real shooters failed to account for the nature, characteristics, and locations of the victim’s wounds.
The Supreme Court observed that Guno could have only hit the leg of Sgt. Bito because he was seen limping immediately after the first shot fired by Guno.
The Supreme Court noted that Dumancas fired towards Sgt. Bito and also towards the jeep at a distance exceeding five meters, thus making it impossible for Dumancas to be responsible for the close-range fatal wound.
The prosecution’s case was further supported by the testimony of Lt. Felias that he saw Ruiz fire and hit him on both thighs, and the testimony of other witnesses such as Antonio Zarcal and Manuel Timcang as referenced in the decision.

Defense Evidence and Theories

Jesus G. Ruiz testified in his own behalf and denied that he inflicted the fatal wound, claiming that he heard shots and that gunfire came from the rear of the police patrol jeep rather than from him.
Ruiz testified that after an argument he left hurriedly to the poblacion, later returned, and then during the incident he sought cover and crawled to escape gunfire.
Ruiz claimed he saw no instances of Felias, Galve, and Bito firing, and he asserted he did not know who fired the shots.
Ruiz also testified that he carried a .38 caliber revolver on the night of the incident and asserted he provided his firearm to the PC, supported by a receipt.
Alfredo Guno testified that he went out and rode in Ruiz’s pick-up, that gunfire erupted upon arrival at the VISLU area, that he ran toward a canal, and that he was later arrested.
Guno asserted that he did not sign his second affidavit because the police allegedly did not allow him to sign and instead treated the contents as the same as his first affidavit.

Issues on Appeal

The Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court erred in crediting prosecution evidence against Jesus G. Ruiz and whether there was error in failing to acquit him.
The Supreme Court assessed whether the trial court erred in finding that Alfredo Guno shot and hit Sgt. Bito’s left leg.
The Supreme Court considered whether the trial court erred in disregarding portions of defense and in relying on alleged biased or unbelievable prosecution witnesses.
The Supreme Court examined whether the trial court correctly found a conspiracy between Ruiz and Guno and thus imposed liability as co-principals for acts in furtherance of conspiracy.
The Supreme Court considered allegations that the trial court was prejudiced and biased against Guno based on remarks and procedural rulings during trial.
The Supreme Court considered whether the killing of Sgt. Bito should have been classified as murder or only homicide, and whether qualifying circumstances such as treachery and evident premeditation were actually present.
The Supreme Court evaluated whether the injuries inflicted upon Lt. Felias and Cpl. Galve constituted frustrated homicide or only physical injuries, among other penalty and classification issues.

Contentions of Jesus G. Ruiz

Ruiz contended that the trial court erred by giving credence to allegedly incredible and uncorroborated prosecution evidence.
Ruiz argued for acquittal based on alleged failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt and alleged deficiencies in the prosecution’s witnesses.
Ruiz attacked Libertad’s credibility as biased due to her relationship with the deceased.
Ruiz also argued that the prosecution did not present sufficient witnesses to corroborate his participation.
Ruiz challenged the trial court’s refusal to appreciate mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, drunkenness not habitual, and having acted in vindication of a grave offense.

Contentions of Alfredo Guno

Guno asserted that the trial court’s conclusion that he shot and hit Sgt. Bito’s leg was based on mere suspicion.
Guno invoked the rule of falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus to argue for disregard of Libertad’s testimony.
Guno challenged the finding of conspiracy, arguing there was